“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion…There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”² ~ Justice William Rehnquist

Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist were the only two Supreme Court justices to vote against the legalization of abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Their dissents, as partially quoted above, contained several reasons why the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of abortion was unconstitutional.

1. It is clearly a matter left to the states to decide, not the federal government (10th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).
2. The Court violated the separation of powers as it wrote new legislation breaking pregnancy into three distinct terms and then deciding what is allowed in each of those terms (Article I, Section 1 of U.S. Constitution).
3. The Court was only allowed to rule on the individual case, not on behalf of all pregnant women. The Court was kept in the dark as to the particular situations of “Roe” and “Doe” since they never appeared before the Court to bring their suits (Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727).
4. Because it was a “hypothetical lawsuit” with the plaintiffs remaining anonymous, the Court violated its practice of never formulating a rule of Constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied (Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39).
5. Since neither “Roe” nor “Doe” claimed to have any mental or physical health concerns with their pregnancies, there was no legal basis to make the claim on behalf of any other pregnant women that abortions may be necessary for the mental or physical health of a mother. For that to be done, a pregnant lady would have had to file suit claiming she needed an abortion for the sake of her mental or physical health. Therefore, “Roe” and “Doe” did not have “standing” to assert the rights of other pregnant women (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62).
6. Even if the Texas law was found to be misapplied in the case of Roe, it was to be declared unconstitutional as applied to the specific case, not to be completely struck down along with all other states’ laws ( Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576).
7. The Court’s appeal to the 4th Amendment for a “right of privacy” in this case is baseless. The law protects individuals from unwarranted search and seizures in the privacy of one’s home. The Texas law in question was the forbiddance of licensed doctors in Texas to kill unborn babies. It was not a law forbidding consenting adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior, as is often argued. It was a law forbidding medical procedures that harm a non-consenting child. The 4th Amendment, therefore, does not apply (Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade).
8. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to a state’s valid objectives in a law (Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491). If the suit brought before the Court was about a state law forbidding a mother from having an abortion when her physical life is in danger, then the Court could decide if the state was violating the mother’s 14th Amendment rights. However, since the case was about a mother who simply wanted to have her baby killed while in the first trimester when her life was not in jeopardy, the baby’s 14th Amendment rights were therefore violated by the Court’s ruling. Consequently, the Court completely ignored the important matter of the “compelling state interest”.
9. The Court completely dismissed the Equal Protection Clause, as all individuals, whether in a womb or not, have the legally protected right to life (14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).
10. The 14th Amendment specifically does not contain a woman’s right to abortion as 36 state or territorial abortion laws were already in place up to 47 years when the 14th Amendment was drafted, proposed, and passed by these states. They all clearly passed it knowing it did not apply to abortion. It was never even argued that it could possibly pertain to abortion until 100 years later!
11. Because the States had outlawed abortion for so long and were still doing so, the declared “right” to an abortion was clearly not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105). As a result, the 9th Amendment’s protection of unenumerated (non-listed) rights does not apply. The Supreme Court even stated as much, choosing instead to try and use the 14th Amendment to defend their decision to legalize abortion and rule against the will of the American people.

Just so no one thinks it is an exaggeration to state how poorly determined and unconstitutional the Court’s ruling was, shortly after the ruling was released, Professor John Hart Ely wrote in The Yale Law Journal, “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”³

Professor Laurence Tribe wrote in the Harvard Law Review, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”⁴   ⁵

Even Justice Harry Blackmun’s (one of the 7 justices who voted in favor of Roe) personal law clerk Edward Lazarus (who is very liberal and pro-abortion) wrote in 2002, “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose…The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent…when Democratic senators oppose a judicial appointment because of the nominee’s opposition to Roe…they practically require that a judicial nominee sign on to logic that is, at best, questionable, and at worst, disingenuous and results-oriented…The standard critique of liberal judges trumpets their willingness to substitute personal preference for legal analysis – and Roe is universally featured as Exhibit A.”⁶

And there it is: the legalization of abortion is not founded on the Constitution, judicial precedent, or the will of the people, but rather the personal preferences of 7 immoral men who wanted to “justify” sin by making it “legal.” Henceforth, abortion has been a legalized crime against humanity and the very image of God.

Is there hope for this atrocity that plagues our nation? With Jesus, there is always hope!